[00:00:00] Speaker 01: We will move to the second case on the argument calendar, Walker v. Arizona. [00:00:40] Speaker 01: Whenever you're ready, Council. [00:00:41] Speaker 01: Thank you all. [00:00:47] Speaker 00: To please the court, Matt McCloud on behalf of Appellant Isaac Contreras. [00:00:51] Speaker 00: I'd like to reserve two minutes for rebuttal. [00:00:54] Speaker 00: This court asked the parties to opine as to jurisdiction on this matter after the Royal Canaan case came down the pipe from the Supreme Court several months ago. [00:01:04] Speaker 00: We briefed the issue and its appellant's position that Royal Canaan does not apply [00:01:08] Speaker 00: to our factual predicate because our case does not involve a situation before final judgment. [00:01:15] Speaker 03: That's why, I'm sorry? [00:01:18] Speaker 00: Does not involve an issue before final judgment. [00:01:21] Speaker 03: What do you mean it doesn't involve an issue before final judgment? [00:01:24] Speaker 00: Well, Royal Canyon says that any time before final judgment... But it was before final judgment. [00:01:28] Speaker 00: Well, Your Honor, I think it was concomitantly with our stip to dismiss, our stip to dismiss had no teeth until the court [00:01:36] Speaker 00: Ruled upon it. [00:01:37] Speaker 00: So I think our step to dismiss and the court ruling on it is and should be viewed as one. [00:01:42] Speaker 00: So that that should be in the same document. [00:01:45] Speaker 00: They were not the same document which came first on the docket. [00:01:49] Speaker 01: The stipulation you're on. [00:01:50] Speaker 01: So I don't understand that argument. [00:01:52] Speaker 01: You had the step to dismiss right which the court at that point had jurisdiction to enter correct and then later the court [00:02:04] Speaker 01: even if it were quickly later, issued a final judgment. [00:02:09] Speaker 01: So taking the word before in its ordinary plain meaning, I don't understand how something which temporally came first isn't before. [00:02:18] Speaker 00: Well, we filed a suit to dismiss with the parties that had no legal authority until Judge Lanza came down and stamped it. [00:02:25] Speaker 01: No, I agree. [00:02:26] Speaker 01: But it still was temporally not much before, but it was still temporally before the final judgment. [00:02:32] Speaker 00: It was temporarily before, but our position is that when he signed it, it became something that was unionized. [00:02:40] Speaker 05: Why does that matter in terms of what the Supreme Court was trying to say or telling us is that if there are no federal claims left, you must remand. [00:02:54] Speaker 00: Correct. [00:02:54] Speaker 00: And again, our contention is that the final judgment language in Roy O'Kaneon distinguishes our case. [00:03:00] Speaker 00: Any of the cases that were cited by either party don't address the factual predicate that we have where we have the case up on appeal and this is raised. [00:03:08] Speaker 00: I would say that for the last 16 months when this case has been pending before this court, even in the briefing, no one's disputed this was a jurisdictional issue. [00:03:16] Speaker 00: No one's contested the unconstitutionality or the constitutionality of 1291. [00:03:22] Speaker 00: the appellees agreed with our position statement as to jurisdiction with our opening brief. [00:03:26] Speaker 04: Well, I understand, but it's jurisdiction. [00:03:32] Speaker 04: I've been thinking about this issue with regard to the district court, but is there any issue about our jurisdiction? [00:03:41] Speaker 00: I don't believe so. [00:03:42] Speaker 00: I believe under 1291, you have jurisdiction to hear a case that was from final judgment from the district court under 1291. [00:03:52] Speaker 01: Counsel, let's say we disagree with you on Royal Canyon. [00:03:55] Speaker 01: Sure. [00:03:56] Speaker 01: So hypothetically, let's say we disagree with you. [00:04:00] Speaker 01: What should we do if we find that the district court's jurisdiction disappeared at the moment the STIP was signed? [00:04:10] Speaker 01: What is your position as to what we should do now? [00:04:13] Speaker 00: Sure, Your Honor. [00:04:14] Speaker 00: Royal Canyon is clear in that factual situation. [00:04:16] Speaker 00: It must be remanded to the state court and Royal Canyon did remand that matter. [00:04:20] Speaker 01: They did. [00:04:21] Speaker 01: And the Supreme Court told, basically upheld the Eighth Circuit. [00:04:25] Speaker 01: Correct. [00:04:25] Speaker 01: But here's my question. [00:04:28] Speaker 01: What is left to remand? [00:04:31] Speaker 01: I'm having perhaps a semantic problem with understanding because once the stipulation to dismiss with prejudice was signed, there was nothing left of the case before [00:04:45] Speaker 01: the district court because the district court had already granted partial summary judgment on what you tried to appeal. [00:04:51] Speaker 01: And then you got rid of everything else. [00:04:55] Speaker 01: So what would there be to be remanded? [00:04:58] Speaker 01: And if we, for example, were to believe that not remanding it were unfair to your clients, what mechanism would there be to get something remanded [00:05:10] Speaker 01: when there's nothing current, there's at the time of the appeal, there's nothing accident in the district court. [00:05:15] Speaker 00: Sure. [00:05:15] Speaker 00: Well, I think you can remand it to district court and district court can then remand it to the state. [00:05:21] Speaker 01: What is it that would be remanded? [00:05:23] Speaker 00: Sure. [00:05:23] Speaker 00: It would be count three of our complaint. [00:05:26] Speaker 00: And obviously the Copa County Superior Court would address as to what they saw fit into how to handle the procedural mechanism of a situation where it was dismissed by a federal court. [00:05:38] Speaker 01: So remand it, even though the district court had granted partial summary judgment as to it. [00:05:44] Speaker 00: I think we have to, because this is the only factual predicate in any of the cases that anybody cited to the record that has this temporal relation to what happened with jurisdiction. [00:05:55] Speaker 01: So your suggestion, again, I understand that you say that Royal Canaan doesn't apply, but if we were to disagree with you, your suggestion would be that we [00:06:06] Speaker 01: basically dismiss the appeal, we instruct the district court to remand count three to the Arizona trial court and let the Arizona trial court worry about what that means with the district court already having ruled on partial summary judgment. [00:06:26] Speaker 01: Absolutely. [00:06:27] Speaker 01: Okay. [00:06:29] Speaker 05: We would have to vacate, right, the judgment because the district judge [00:06:36] Speaker 05: decided. [00:06:37] Speaker 00: That's a good point your honor and that may be something the judge lands would have to do and maybe the the appellants could ask him to vacate um the judgment to send it back to superior court the procedural mechanism of which i'm not exactly sure. [00:06:56] Speaker 01: Oh sure this court would yes absolutely but that's just the final judge. [00:06:59] Speaker 01: not not the interlocutory part. [00:07:01] Speaker 01: So correct. [00:07:02] Speaker 01: There are strange procedural pieces here, at least to me, post Royal Canaan. [00:07:07] Speaker 00: Absolutely. [00:07:08] Speaker 00: And I think, you know, with the cases that were cited in the record, specifically Royal Canaan, the situation, the remedy is remand. [00:07:16] Speaker 00: There's no other cases where the appeal was thrown out. [00:07:19] Speaker 00: I believe the appellee cited to the Cataway case, but that involved a situation where liability was decided, but not damages. [00:07:26] Speaker 00: And the court said we're not going to piecemeal it. [00:07:28] Speaker 00: I think remand is the appropriate mechanism. [00:07:30] Speaker 00: I don't think there's any other cases that fit our factual predicate. [00:07:37] Speaker 00: And I can certainly address the underlying issue. [00:07:39] Speaker 01: Although it sounds like both sides are sort of saying, although they take different views on Royal Canaan, if you're going to reach the merits, it wouldn't be a bad idea to certify it since it's a potentially unsettled state law question. [00:07:53] Speaker 00: Absolutely, Your Honor. [00:07:54] Speaker 00: It's a totally unsettled state law question. [00:07:56] Speaker 01: I mean, both of you say it's clear and you win. [00:07:59] Speaker 00: Well, that's true. [00:08:00] Speaker 00: There's positional discrepancies. [00:08:02] Speaker 00: But in terms of the Arizona Supreme Court deciding an issue as serious as SMI rights, especially after the Arnold case and the proliferation of the code and the statutes dealing with SMI, this is a case of first impression that I think the Supreme Court would be well suited to address. [00:08:20] Speaker 01: I don't have any questions on the merits. [00:08:22] Speaker 01: I don't know if my colleagues do. [00:08:24] Speaker 00: And John, would you like me to talk about the underlying merits of the case or we can just obviously focus on jurisdiction? [00:08:29] Speaker 01: I would be fine to just focus on jurisdiction, but you get to control how you argue. [00:08:33] Speaker 01: Okay. [00:08:35] Speaker 00: That's all I have in terms of jurisdiction, but I will reserve some time. [00:08:37] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:08:46] Speaker 02: Good morning, your honors. [00:08:47] Speaker 02: Eileen Gilbride for the defense. [00:08:50] Speaker 02: First of all, I think there is an issue of this court's jurisdiction. [00:08:53] Speaker 02: We need Article III, a federal ingredient, and we don't have that. [00:09:05] Speaker 02: I'm sorry, I'm having trouble hearing. [00:09:10] Speaker 02: There's always jurisdiction to decide your jurisdiction. [00:09:28] Speaker 02: But that's true, but because there's, I think what we're confusing is there's jurisdiction to decide jurisdiction as opposed to jurisdiction to decide the merits. [00:09:42] Speaker 02: This court, I didn't mean to suggest that this court lacks jurisdiction to talk about jurisdiction. [00:09:48] Speaker 01: No, but I mean, didn't, in Royal Canaan, the Eighth Circuit had remanded it. [00:09:55] Speaker 01: Right. [00:09:57] Speaker 01: Affirmed the judgment of the eighth circuit. [00:10:00] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:10:01] Speaker 01: So even though the Supreme court found on the merits, there was no jurisdiction. [00:10:06] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:10:06] Speaker 01: They nonetheless sanctioned a process or commanded a process under the mandate rule that the eighth circuit would be instructing the district court to instruct or to remand. [00:10:20] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:10:21] Speaker 02: That's what I'm trying to say is there's always the power to decide jurisdiction. [00:10:33] Speaker 02: I'm not sure I understand that there's jurisdiction to decide jurisdiction. [00:10:38] Speaker 02: There is not jurisdiction. [00:10:46] Speaker 02: You have jurisdiction to decide jurisdiction and you have jurisdiction to decide the district court's jurisdiction. [00:10:58] Speaker 02: I agree. [00:11:01] Speaker 02: I agree. [00:11:03] Speaker 02: I don't yet. [00:11:10] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:11:12] Speaker 02: Your honor asked about what do we do and council said, remand and I agree with you, your honor that there's nothing to remand. [00:11:19] Speaker 02: We can't remand if you remand. [00:11:22] Speaker 02: Count 3. [00:11:24] Speaker 02: We are encouraging plaintiffs who lose a dispositive motion to say, fine, I'm just going to dismiss my federal claims and give it a second bite at the apple. [00:11:34] Speaker 01: I mean, but here, um, as the Supreme court pointed out, the law was unclear. [00:11:40] Speaker 01: I think the law in the ninth circuit was such that what they did was fine. [00:11:47] Speaker 01: Um, but you wrote in your, in your, uh, [00:11:53] Speaker 01: Answering brief they didn't do anything wrong here. [00:11:55] Speaker 01: They weren't improperly manipulating things. [00:11:58] Speaker 01: How would it be fair to? [00:12:01] Speaker 01: Basically say well the law changed and so we're gonna punish you by essentially Killing the entire the entire case. [00:12:12] Speaker 01: How is that fair? [00:12:13] Speaker 02: I understand. [00:12:14] Speaker 02: I understand your sentiment your honor, but [00:12:17] Speaker 02: Um, a jurisdiction is not about fairness. [00:12:20] Speaker 02: It either exists or it doesn't exist. [00:12:22] Speaker 02: And what plaintiff was doing here while not manipulating jurisdiction is telling the court. [00:12:29] Speaker 02: My case is not about anything federal. [00:12:31] Speaker 02: My case is about this state claim and nothing else. [00:12:36] Speaker 02: And if the, if the plaintiff who is the master of his claim is telling this court what his case is about, we should believe him. [00:12:45] Speaker 01: Although, you know, [00:12:47] Speaker 01: This may be neither here nor there, but this is not a case where they brought it in federal court. [00:12:53] Speaker 01: You removed it. [00:12:54] Speaker 02: Correct. [00:12:54] Speaker 02: Correct. [00:12:56] Speaker 02: So, and perhaps they should not have if really their case, you know, turns on count three, which they're putting all their eggs in that basket. [00:13:05] Speaker 02: Perhaps they shouldn't have. [00:13:06] Speaker 02: tried to allege a federal claim in the first place, which caused the removal. [00:13:13] Speaker 02: I mean, if really they're entitled to say what their case is about. [00:13:17] Speaker 02: And if their case is about count three and nothing else, they had their day on court on count three, Judge Lanza made that decision. [00:13:25] Speaker 02: And if you do as plaintiffs say, and remand count three, it's going to give them what we don't want to encourage [00:13:46] Speaker 02: But the but the difference. [00:14:29] Speaker 02: Because in royal canon, the amendment of the complaint occurred very early on in the case. [00:14:40] Speaker 02: But I don't think the plaintiff was trying to get another bite at the apple at the claim that was decided. [00:14:57] Speaker 02: The claim that was decided was simply the claim that allowed federal jurisdiction. [00:15:02] Speaker 02: They weren't going back. [00:15:08] Speaker 02: But the difference is the plaintiff here is suggesting send count three, which has already been decided back so that we can… [00:15:22] Speaker 02: But I'm not sure that they were looking to get another bite at the apple on that claim. [00:15:48] Speaker 02: That's a very good question. [00:15:49] Speaker 02: And I'm going to answer by saying, I don't think he did. [00:15:54] Speaker 02: And this is why Rule 15A2 speaks about a dismissal with the consent of the parties or with leave of court. [00:16:09] Speaker 02: Here we had stipulation of the parties. [00:16:12] Speaker 02: And so the parties weren't asking the court whether [00:16:17] Speaker 02: they could amend their complaint or dismiss claims. [00:16:21] Speaker 02: They were stipulating, both parties were stipulating to dismiss those claims. [00:16:26] Speaker 02: I was not able to find a case where the district judge had the discretion to reject such a stipulation. [00:16:37] Speaker 02: The district court can reject a motion that is not stipulated to, [00:16:44] Speaker 02: especially where the plaintiff is trying to manipulate jurisdiction. [00:16:48] Speaker 02: But I couldn't find a case that said the district court has the discretion when you have the consent of the parties. [00:17:21] Speaker 02: So the order accepting or granting the stipulation was the same document, as you know, that made that stipulation effective and dismissed the claims. [00:17:38] Speaker 02: So if the district court had jurisdiction to grant the stipulation, and again, I'm not clear on that, [00:17:50] Speaker 02: at the exact same moment, it would have had to have had jurisdiction to dismiss the case in accordance with that stipulation. [00:18:00] Speaker 02: It's there, as counsel had said, it's simultaneous. [00:18:04] Speaker 02: And so if there is jurisdiction to grant that stipulation, I don't see how there was no jurisdiction to effectuate that stipulation into a dismissal of the case. [00:18:20] Speaker 05: If Royal Cannon had been in place at the time, the judge would have, the district judge would have accepted the stipulation or whatever you do and remanded the Arizona claim, right? [00:18:37] Speaker 05: For lack of jurisdiction. [00:18:39] Speaker 02: I, I don't think as, as Judge Menett said, there's nothing left to remand. [00:18:46] Speaker 02: that because this all occurred simultaneously. [00:18:49] Speaker 02: Well, the Arizona claims survived, didn't it? [00:18:51] Speaker 02: They dismissed everything except count three, which had already been judgment on the, we had one judgment on pleadings on that. [00:19:01] Speaker 04: Well, there is something left to remand, which is a case in which the judgment that was entered was without jurisdiction. [00:19:10] Speaker 04: So everything that was decided by that judgment is void. [00:19:16] Speaker 02: And this is the problem that I was raising before, is if we go with what plaintiff is asking to remand count three, they're getting a second bite at the apple. [00:19:28] Speaker 04: And it just happened in Royal Cannon also. [00:19:32] Speaker 02: Well, I'm not sure that Royal Cannon involved a second bite at the apple, but I'll have to. [00:19:38] Speaker 02: No, because they just did. [00:19:40] Speaker 04: What happened was the district court thought the rule was otherwise. [00:19:47] Speaker 04: And therefore, after the, as one would think from our case law as well. [00:19:53] Speaker 04: So after the plaintiff dismissed the federal issue, he said, I still have jurisdiction over the state law issue. [00:20:02] Speaker 04: And he decided it. [00:20:04] Speaker 04: Then they appeal that to the eighth circuit, which says, well, which says, well, no, you don't. [00:20:12] Speaker 04: But he did decide it on the merits. [00:20:17] Speaker 04: And that's what was remanded. [00:20:18] Speaker 04: So it was undoing something that had been decided. [00:20:22] Speaker 04: I'll have to, sorry. [00:20:24] Speaker 01: I'm not clear that in Royal Canaan, the trial court had reached the merits of the state court claim. [00:20:31] Speaker 01: So I would need to review that more carefully. [00:20:34] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:20:35] Speaker 01: But here with regard to, if without any gloss, hypothetically, the district court [00:20:46] Speaker 01: I just simply said, count three is remanded to the state court without saying anything else. [00:20:54] Speaker 02: Without deciding on the merits? [00:20:55] Speaker 01: Well, just saying count three is remanded. [00:20:58] Speaker 02: After it had already decided? [00:21:00] Speaker 01: If that were all that it was, then wouldn't the Arizona court have to decide what that meant? [00:21:10] Speaker 01: And wouldn't you be arguing to the Arizona court, A, [00:21:14] Speaker 01: the federal district court on the merits was right. [00:21:18] Speaker 01: B, this has already been decided. [00:21:20] Speaker 01: C, you shouldn't redo it. [00:21:23] Speaker 01: And D, if they want any relief at this point, let them go upstairs. [00:21:28] Speaker 02: If you find that the district court did not have jurisdiction to take that order, that it was just a, I'm sorry, the word is escaping me. [00:21:45] Speaker 02: It was a, not a substantive, but a, but a non-substantive conduct of entering the order in accordance with the stipulation. [00:21:54] Speaker 02: If you find that the district court didn't have the jurisdiction to do that. [00:21:59] Speaker 01: No, the district court clearly in my mind had clearly had jurisdiction to do the dismissal, but at that point it lost jurisdiction over the case. [00:22:08] Speaker 01: But my question was if we simply told the district court remand count three without putting any gloss on it. [00:22:15] Speaker 01: the impact of that would be, the state court would have to decide what the impact of that was. [00:22:20] Speaker 02: And it may be that we have to make that argument, win that argument in state court. [00:22:25] Speaker 04: But also, I mean, another thing that strikes me about this is that both you and the plaintiffs are now arguing the case should be certified to the Arizona Supreme Court, right? [00:22:35] Speaker 02: If this court believes it has jurisdiction, then we should certify it, right? [00:22:40] Speaker 02: We can do that. [00:22:41] Speaker 04: Can I? [00:22:42] Speaker 04: If I may finish. [00:22:42] Speaker 04: Yes, sorry. [00:22:44] Speaker 04: So essentially, you're both agreeing that the legal issue belongs in state court. [00:22:50] Speaker 04: And therefore, it doesn't seem, and it's pretty much a pure legal issue. [00:22:56] Speaker 04: So it doesn't seem like a great burden to be in state court because that's where you want to be. [00:23:02] Speaker 04: We want to be in federal court and dismissed. [00:23:04] Speaker 02: No, you want to be in state court and you want the state court to decide the legal issue. [00:23:08] Speaker 02: Well, let me put it this way. [00:23:10] Speaker 02: We are very comfortable with the merits and are very happy to have this court decide the merits if it wants to. [00:23:15] Speaker 04: Well, except you did in your supplemental briefs say that we should certify the issue. [00:23:19] Speaker 02: Yes. [00:23:19] Speaker 02: And the reason is just so we would have a definitive ruling so that this court wouldn't have to… All right. [00:23:25] Speaker 04: And so, although you're saying that it would be very unfair to go back to state court, that's where you want the decision to be anyway. [00:23:30] Speaker 04: Only if the court disagrees with us on the jurisdictional issue. [00:23:35] Speaker 04: No, but then you say, if we disagree with you on the jurisdictional issue, we should certify it to the Arizona Supreme Court because the state court should decide the legal issue. [00:23:44] Speaker 02: If the court disagrees with us on the jurisdiction of this court and you feel like you have jurisdiction to do that, then we're happy to have you do that. [00:23:52] Speaker 02: We're happy to have you decide the merits or certify it. [00:23:57] Speaker 01: All right. [00:23:57] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:23:58] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:24:03] Speaker 00: Just briefly obviously the parties aren't contending that there was any kind of collusion or manipulation with the step to dismiss the one case that the Appellees did cite the data star case did involve Manipulation and the court said well what you could do to remedy the situation is File a step to dismiss to get to final judgment and then bring it up on appeal right yourself into a problem because you're assuming [00:24:31] Speaker 04: the answer to the Royal Canon problem, you know, reasonably because that was the law in the Ninth Circuit. [00:24:41] Speaker 04: And then in turn, yeah, that's not the answer. [00:24:43] Speaker 00: Correct. [00:24:44] Speaker 00: I am just reiterating the fact that we chose an appropriate mechanism to get our case to appeal. [00:24:50] Speaker 04: Because one of the things I was thinking about was, does it make sense to put the whole thing back before the district court in light of Royal Canon? [00:25:01] Speaker 04: sort of more generally and not do anything specifically. [00:25:08] Speaker 04: And would the district court at that point have any authority to disapprove the stipulation? [00:25:15] Speaker 04: Your opponent says somewhat convincingly no, but I don't know the answer to that. [00:25:21] Speaker 00: He could potentially. [00:25:21] Speaker 00: And again, I don't know whether he has the authority or not on his face. [00:25:25] Speaker 00: It seems from a fairness perspective that maybe he could unwind. [00:25:28] Speaker 04: But the representation is under Rule 15. [00:25:33] Speaker 04: If there's a stipulated dismissal, the district court doesn't actually have to rule on it. [00:25:38] Speaker 04: Is that right or wrong? [00:25:39] Speaker 04: Do you know? [00:25:39] Speaker 01: I don't know the answer to that, Your Honor. [00:25:42] Speaker 01: I think I would have to disagree that fairness would cause him, if he had the jurisdiction, to want to unwind it. [00:25:54] Speaker 01: Whatever the jurisdictional parameters that you didn't know, [00:25:58] Speaker 01: the time, you certainly knew when you agreed to the step that you were intending to give up the federal claims forever. [00:26:06] Speaker 01: Correct. [00:26:07] Speaker 00: And I think it's important that what we're potentially losing, Mr. Contreras is losing is his constitutional appellate rights. [00:26:15] Speaker 00: It's not a situation of tough luck, the law changed or any kind of vernacular of it is what it is. [00:26:20] Speaker 00: What he's losing is his appellate rights. [00:26:23] Speaker 00: Now, if it gets sent back to the state court on count three, [00:26:26] Speaker 00: Could there be a restricata argument? [00:26:28] Speaker 00: Could the Superior Court be intertwined with that? [00:26:31] Speaker 00: Sure, but at least he's getting some sort of appeal. [00:26:33] Speaker 04: I don't think there could, but it'll be up to the State Court, but there'd be no final judgment in State Court. [00:26:41] Speaker 04: Sure, but he's at least getting an ability. [00:26:44] Speaker 00: Correct, Your Honor, but he's at least getting an opportunity to address the case on the merits if it's remanded to State Court. [00:26:50] Speaker 01: He would have the opportunity, and whether [00:26:53] Speaker 01: the state court wanted to give it to him or not. [00:26:55] Speaker 01: If we did, that would be, of course, up to the state court. [00:26:57] Speaker 01: Absolutely, Your Honor. [00:26:59] Speaker 05: If the district judge had supplemental jurisdiction when he decided the state law claim, does that make a difference? [00:27:08] Speaker 05: That is, does that give us jurisdiction because at the time he decided? [00:27:17] Speaker 00: That's a good question, Your Honor. [00:27:18] Speaker 00: I think Royal Canaan, though, kind of puts that to rest. [00:27:21] Speaker 00: But again, I'm not sure. [00:27:23] Speaker 04: Well, no, because in the Royal Canon, they didn't have jurisdiction at the time they decided. [00:27:27] Speaker 04: That is a distinction between the Royal Canon. [00:27:29] Speaker 04: In the Royal Canon, the federal claims had already been dropped at the time the state law question was decided. [00:27:39] Speaker 04: So Judge Lefkoe was saying that wasn't the case here. [00:27:42] Speaker 04: At the time he decided the state law issue, the federal claims were still in the case. [00:27:48] Speaker 00: Sure. [00:27:48] Speaker 00: Does that matter? [00:27:49] Speaker 00: So in that situation, then maybe supplemental jurisdiction did apply for Judge Lanza. [00:27:54] Speaker 03: I'm sorry? [00:27:55] Speaker 00: Maybe supplemental jurisdiction did apply for Judge Lanza in that factual scenario that Judge Lefkoe outlined. [00:28:00] Speaker 04: Well, he had to have plan of jurisdiction when he decided it. [00:28:03] Speaker 04: Sure. [00:28:03] Speaker 04: But not at the time of the final judgment, perhaps. [00:28:07] Speaker 04: So that's the question to say, is that enough of a distinction with royal canon that we should treat it differently? [00:28:13] Speaker 00: I don't know the answer to that, Your Honor. [00:28:16] Speaker 04: That's kind of the key question. [00:28:20] Speaker 00: Well, again, it all depends on what he had the ability to do. [00:28:24] Speaker 00: We believe he had the ability to rule on the step to dismiss. [00:28:28] Speaker 00: It entered into final judgment, which then triggered our appellate rights. [00:28:33] Speaker 00: Royal Canaan, if you believe there is no jurisdiction demands a remand to state court. [00:28:38] Speaker 00: And no other case has been cited to indicate otherwise, if in fact Royal Canaan controls. [00:28:45] Speaker 05: You would have to vacate the judgment. [00:28:48] Speaker 00: Potentially that may be a procedural mechanism to achieve what we want to do. [00:28:52] Speaker 00: Yes. [00:28:53] Speaker 00: Or he could just send it back count 3. [00:28:58] Speaker 01: Right, if you have nothing further. [00:29:00] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:29:00] Speaker 01: All right, we thank counsel for their arguments. [00:29:02] Speaker 01: The case just argued is submitted.